Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on April 01, 2016, 02:57:04 PM
-
The majority of every single demographic group dislikes Trump.
Pretty impressive achievement, that.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/files/2016/03/postchart.jpg)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/31/nightmare-nominee-nobody-likes-donald-trump-not-even-white-men/
-
* Note: Respondents who answered "No Opinion" not shown
If so many people don't like The Donald, why is it that he's still way ahead in the delegate count, and the Republican party is working so frantically to find ways to sabotage his candidacy?
-
If so many people don't like The Donald, why is it that he's still way ahead in the delegate count, and the Republican party is working so frantically to find ways to sabotage his candidacy?
Hawkmoon, Trump hasn't gotten most of the voters in the primary. He has a plurality. The non-Trump republican voters are in the majority but it is split among several candidates. That is how it is possible for most conservatives to dislike him.
That is only among primary voters. Among general election voters he is far more unpopular.
How is he going to win when 67% of general election voters despise him? Trump voters with their ideas about him winning moderates and "Reagan democrats" are utterly delusional.
-
If so many people don't like The Donald, why is it that he's still way ahead in the delegate count, and the Republican party is working so frantically to find ways to sabotage his candidacy?
I think a bunch of people didn't like him, but voted for him anyway to send a message to The Establishment. Cut off your nose to spite your face.
-
Trumps success in the polls is the social equivalent of the little girl from the trailer park is mad at her dad and figures the best way she can hurt his feelings is by getting knocked up by one of the brothers from the projects
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
How is he going to win when 67% of general election voters despise him? Trump voters with their ideas about him winning moderates and "Reagan democrats" are utterly delusional.
The republicans might want to take that deal from Obama for a 'conservative democrat' to replace Scalia, because if Trump wins the primary, I don't see any way in hell he'd win against Clinton. And I detest Clinton.
-
Trumps success in the polls is the social equivalent of the little girl from the trailer park is mad at her dad and figures the best way she can hurt his feelings is by getting knocked up by one of the brothers from the projects
Awww... that is an amazing analogy, but on first reading I read "knocked up by one of her brothers."
Which is a whole other level of messed up.
-
Hawkmoon, Trump hasn't gotten most of the voters in the primary. He has a plurality. The non-Trump republican voters are in the majority but it is split among several candidates. That is how it is possible for most conservatives to dislike him.
That is only among primary voters. Among general election voters he is far more unpopular.
How is he going to win when 67% of general election voters despise him? Trump voters with their ideas about him winning moderates and "Reagan democrats" are utterly delusional.
That is pretty much how McCain won the nomination a few years back. He was getting a solid 20% or more and that was enough to put him over the top in the first handful of primaries. None of the other candidates were strong enough to challenge him after that.
I was wondering if that has been changing after Rubio and Carson dropped out. There are fewer candidates to split the vote. Not sure but maybe enough to keep Trump from getting a majority.
-
The republicans might want to take that deal from Obama for a 'conservative democrat' to replace Scalia, because if Trump wins the primary, I don't see any way in hell he'd win against Clinton. And I detest Clinton.
Part of what defines the establishment as the establishment is its perceived invincibility.
The primaries are showing that any pronouncement of "no way" is premature. Trump isn't a mouthpiece for special interests, and it shows - that's got an appeal all its own. Look at dissatisfaction with congress, the president, and clintons over time to compare.
-
Hillary is the next president, get used to it.
-
I think a bunch of people didn't like him, but voted for him anyway to send a message to The Establishment. Cut off your nose to spite your face.
That's really the dem side as well. I saw Sanders has again beat his previous month's contributions numbers, and apparently the vast, vast number of contributions averages around 25 bucks a pop. That means he's getting big raw numbers for individual voters. Clinton getting the dem nomination may be as interesting to watch as a brokered Republican convention.
-
Hillary is the next president, get used to it.
Everyone said the same when Barack started his campaign too.
I would normally bet on a democrat in this race, but the Hill has a track record of losing votes the more she gets in the spotlight. The polls will not look anything like they do now after the conventions.
-
Everyone said the same when Barack started his campaign too.
I would normally bet on a democrat in this race, but the Hill has a track record of losing votes the more she gets in the spotlight. The polls will not look anything like they do now after the conventions.
And has she ever won a general election outside of New York?
-
Hillary is the next president, get used to it.
Yup
-
Everyone said the same when Barack started his campaign too.
I would normally bet on a democrat in this race, but the Hill has a track record of losing votes the more she gets in the spotlight. The polls will not look anything like they do now after the conventions.
The more folk see of Hillary they less they like her. She is most popular when folk hear little from her. There is good reason there are so few Dem debates. Wasserman-Schultz and Hill's folk know this. If she gets too much coverage before November, Trump's lead will be larger than the margin of fraud in too many states. Cruz's would not be so large and it is likely he would be losing outright.
Sadly, Cruz would lose to Hill in a general election. Oh, he has better arguments by the dozens, but it won't matter as the election will not be won with tight arguments. The MSM will tight focus on Cruz and never let go. All Cruzcruzcruz the dough-faced weenie. And every once in a while a soft focus shot of Hillary, just to remind you she is running, has a vagina, and is not Cruz. Given that he has the charisma of a 3 day old fish, Cruz won't be able to counter it. And Cruz has not Trump's ability to turn most attacks against him to his advantage by going rhetorical/sales pitch. And Cruz can't go after some of Hill & Bill's greatest weaknesses, as he has his own serial bimbo and current donation/campaign cash problems. I've already heard the non-denials of the bimbos. Clinton was better at it. And it will erode his core evangelical support, which is a bad thing for the candidate who plans on winning by rallying the base.
Like DS wrote, the polls will be a whole different ball game after the conventions. Most importantly, the MSM will not be able to keep Hill off the airwaves in their coverage of the Dem convention. That will Eddie Haskell the game board and it will be a new game.
Sanders would, despite his general cluelessness, be a better candidate for the Dems0. He has, like BHO in 2008 and Trump today, a less-defined image that folk can mold into the shapes of their hopes.
==========
For the tl;dr crowd:
1. Exposure during Dem convention hurts Hillary to the point she is about equal with GOP nominee.
2. The GOP nominee that can shift the focus to Hillary will prevail.
3. Cruz is incapable of #2. Trump has the best odds to make it happen.
4. If Sanders wins the Dem convention, the GOP has only a sliver of a chance with Trump, zero chance with any other candidate.
-
Rooster, the more the general public sees of Trump, the more they hate him. See the favorablity ratings I posted.
He just doubles down on being a jackass. His voters (the minority of the primary voters!) love him for it, but it repulses the majority of the public.
-
Here's my amateur take. Trump has gone after Hillary relatively little. He's saved most of his fire for his primary opponents. He succeeded in defeating them in large part by defining them: low energy Bush, for example. The attacks may seem crude, but he's defining his opponent with them. Trump defines the opponent to the public, not the opponent.
Hillary is a wealth of attack material, and I can't see Trump not using every last crumb.
If Trump winds up as the nominee, I think there's going to be a very dramatic shift in poll numbers.
-
Here's my amateur take. Trump has gone after Hillary relatively little. He's saved most of his fire for his primary opponents. He succeeded in defeating them in large part by defining them: low energy Bush, for example. The attacks may seem crude, but he's defining his opponent with them. Trump defines the opponent to the public, not the opponent.
Hillary is a wealth of attack material, and I can't see Trump not using every last crumb.
If Trump winds up as the nominee, I think there's going to be a very dramatic shift in poll numbers.
Probably not. The MSM is in the tank for HRC, and they will not cut Trump any slack at all. Despite the fevered Internet-age hopes of conservatives, the MSM still hold a lot of sway over the great unwashed masses.
Trump will be depicted as the mean nasty kitten-killing Republican, and Hillary will be a victim of the vast right wing conspiracy. She will win in November, and likely won't break a sweat doing it.
-
This has been a really odd election year, and I think really odd, unconventional things can still happen.
Maybe we'll get a chance to see if I'm right.
-
Barring more racial strife and shenanigans like Ferguson, Baltimore etc. or more terrorist attacks like San Bernardino I don't see how Trump has a chance.
Minorities and women pretty much determine who runs the country now.
Advantage Clinton.
-
Probably not. The MSM is in the tank for HRC, and they will not cut Trump any slack at all. Despite the fevered Internet-age hopes of conservatives, the MSM still hold a lot of sway over the great unwashed masses.
Trump will be depicted as the mean nasty kitten-killing Republican, and Hillary will be a victim of the vast right wing conspiracy. She will win in November, and likely won't break a sweat doing it.
The one thing that Trump has figured out better than any other candidate is that a plurality of America hates/distrusts/disbelieves the MSM and the more they're against a candidate, the more it serves as a de-facto endorsement.
The one true accomplishment I respect him for is this. He's managed to turn the "MSM is going to crucify you! Common wisdom on it's head." For all his faults, this is the one thing I appreciate about him.
I also think there's a significant number of people who don't support him in the Primaries, and don't admit to supporting him in polls. However, many would support him over Hillary if it comes down to it. Is it enough for him to win? No clue... That I freely admit. The opposite of the Obama effect, how he was 2-5% lower in actual voting returns than polling, just because statistically detectable number of Americans didn't want to answer poll questions and look "racist" for "being against the black guy" etc. Of course that was still enough to beat McCain and Romney handily anyway.
However, the enthusiasm-gap was firmly in play against the GOP both election cycles. So far, the enthusiasm-gap is working against the DNC massively this go around.
https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/New-Day-08_21_44-AM.jpg
How Trump plays in that, I don't know. But it's not going to Help Hillary or Sanders in the general. That's for sure.
That would be the one arguable upside of a Trump win, despite what a disaster he might be otherwise, he'd be a major break in the MSM's ability (including Fox) to "debate frame" and "set the tone" etc. Something that sadly, the Internet and talk radio, and the decline of the major 50 newspaper markets, and networks haven't been able to do yet.
-
Why are the Trump supports throwing in the towel in defeat now? Still a long way to go.
-
Why are the Trump supports throwing in the towel in defeat now? Still a long way to go.
Trump is really good at throwing in the towel. Are you kidding me? He throws a towel better than anybody. You have no idea. The towels that he throws are yooooge, and he throws them so far, you won't believe it.
-
The non-Trump republican voters are in the majority but it is split among several candidates.
Several? Last I checked, it's some for Cruz, and Kasich still has his mom's vote.
-
Several? Last I checked, it's some for Cruz, and Kasich still has his mom's vote.
This.
Frankly, the argument is lame and foolish. Using the same logic, one could argue that EVEN MORE GOP primary voters are voting against any single one of the other candidates.
Why are the Trump supports throwing in the towel in defeat now? Still a long way to go.
Indeed.
-
It's foolish to argue that a party shouldn't nominate a man the majority of the electorate hates? ???
-
It's foolish to argue that a party shouldn't nominate a man the majority of the electorate hates? ??
Mathematically speaking, yes. The line:
"The non-<candidate_name_here> republican voters are in the majority but it is split among several candidates."
applies also to Cruz, Kasich and all other candidates who met the qualifications and ran. More so than it applies to Trump, since he has the most votes & delegates.
It is the sort of witticism that sounds smart and sophisticated until you give it a moment's thought, when it crumbles under the lightest application of logic.
Just because you may(1) have Trump Derangement Syndrome does not mean everyone who has voted for another candidate in the GOP primary does(2). Or that folk who currently have an unfavorable view of him hate him. For instance, I voted for Trump in the primary, but do not hate Cruz and would vote for him before I would vote for Hillary(3).
Here's a hint: The majority of folk who will cast their votes come November are not even paying attention yet. Things will get frisky after the convention, when we see if those who lose line up behind the GOP candidate and more folk tune in.
(1) Equating votes against and unfavorablility as "hates" is telling, but not proof positive.
(2) Most common second-choice for Trump voters: Cruz. Most common second-choice for Cruz-voters: Trump. Most common second-choice for Rubio voters: RuPaul.
(3) Probably. This has been an hilarious and unpredictable election season, more full of possibility than in decades. Who knows, the horse may yet learn to sing?
-
I walked in while Wife was watching MSNBC. They were talking about Trump, of course. It wasn't even Chris Matthews. "War on Women", blah, blah. Started going on about him not trusting the government's unemployment numbers and then cut away to Richard Nixon ranting about the Bureau of Labor Statistics being a bunch of lying Jews. The implication was pretty obvious. I guess I'm an anti-Semite too because I don't trust the Obama administration's numbers.
I had to leave the room. I wouldn't tolerate such yellow journalism if it was against Clinton or Obama! (I'll admit I would tolerate it a little longer)
I'm also beginning to believe that the Republican party wants to lose the election, and whole primary/caucus/convention process is just picking the scapegoat. I have no idea what their ulterior motive or long game is.
-
Republicans have the same long game as Democrats: increase the size and power of fed.gov and use it to enrich themselves. And if you don't believe me just look at what happens when they have the House Senate and Presidency.
-
Republicans have the same long game as Democrats: increase the size and power of fed.gov and use it to enrich themselves.
I know that, but I really don't see how anything they've done in the past... 10 years or so really accomplishes that. They are ceding more and more to the Democrats. I'm sure I'm just looking at it from the wrong perspective; individual incumbents are probably enriching themselves (*expletive deleted*ck the party, what's in it for ME) and letting the Democrats handle most of the expansion of .gov for a while.